Interesting take I can't agree with. Maybe their product environment is very different.

once the feature finally arrives in production after a lengthy review, it is in truth no longer aligned with the user’s needs.

I've never had this happen in my development.

In my team, it's fine to skip reviews and commit on main, when it's reasonably small and confidence is high. An obvious and small change also does not take up much time to review.

The effort put into creating a well-/reasonably-described review is effort put into well design changesets and Git history. It helps you cover all bases, cases, and considerations while developing.

Review necessity, investment, and urgency are dynamic. If you as a reviewer don't have the time of mindspace, saying so is fine. Reviewers can be changed or skipped. Reviews can be to different depth and completeness, or partial.

Be mindful of what is reasonable and efficient and reviews are not hard blockers beyond what they should reasonably be. Reviews serve as significant quality, issue, and common understanding gates.